While reading the Sequel to the Conversation,
I was immediately struck by Bordeu’s assertion on page 230 that “nothing that
exists can be against nature or outside of nature.” This statement seems to act as a summation of
Diderot’s earlier arguments. Bordeu states that there is “only one substance in
the universe, in man, in animals” (p160) while D’Alembert says that “in nature,
everything is bound up with everything else” (p181). If one believes that every object is composed
of the same material, if “there is but one great individual, and that is the whole,”
(p181) then it seems logical to reject the very concept of the “unnatural.” Interestingly, Bordeu applies this concept to
human behavior as well.
01 February 2012
Regarding the "Unnatural"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with the proposition that belief systems influence understandings of "natural" and "unnatural". Religion, Christianity in particular, focuses on the concept of immortality being a gift given due to the sacrifice of Jesus, or for believing in God. So does a Polyp believe in Jesus? Honestly, we will never know (I'm going to wage the guess 'no', but we can discuss that in class).
ReplyDeleteThe point being that these discoveries and theoretical discussions challenge that which people are comfortable with, whether it be because of their belief systems or even their own frame of reference.
I think I would be pretty shocked if someone showed me an immortal creature because experience and Science (and by science I mean whatever classes I was forced to take in High School) has taught me that life and living creatures are inextricably linked to death.
These concepts challenge the mind to expand past the comfort zone.
I think one of the most interesting points you raise is Bordeau's statement that there is "only one substance in the universe, in man, in animals." While his assertion has the shocking (even more so at the time, I would think) of okaying inter-species breeding, it also serves to discredit the anthropomorphic world-view we've been talking about in class. Additionally, Bordeau's words bear an interesting parallel to the materialist belief that humans are made of only one substance, not two, as Descartes believed. This illustrates just how intertwined everything is in Diderot's text.
ReplyDeleteDiderot was really ambitious to take on the "natural" question because in doing so, he touches on many different societal questions that were undoubtedly sensitive at the time. He calls society out on having created a cult of virginity that he sees as being "puerile, ridiculous, absurd, harmful, contemptible, and bad," and deems masturbation-- which judging from Mlle. de L'Espinasse's reaction, was quite scandalous to even mention-- "harmless" and useful, and takes a similar stance on homosexuality and bestiality, and even sees the harm in slavery.
ReplyDeleteEven now, the conservative religious crowd is generally against masturbation, homosexuality, bestiality, etc., so undoubtedly the more religiously- oriented readers of that day, including those who thought of science through a religious lens such as the Anonymous Cambridge Gentleman, must have been downright scandalized by the implications of Diderot's arguement. It seems likely that this sort of reader would be much more closely aligned with the current social convention in what was deemed "unnatural," while Diderot, seemingly a very progressive thinker, was less inclined to think along the lines of social and religious convention, was aiming to create an entirely new conception of "natural".
I believe that these contrasting belief systems would have led to two completely different concepts of “unnatural”, or rather, seemingly “unnatural”, however, but solely on the basis of the differences between the belief systems themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe Cambridge man would not have attempted to explain the reasons for immortality in the polyp because of the controversy and potential heresy of the topic. The existence of any immortal being other than God was against everything any god-fearing individual stood for. Consequently, they threw the polyp into a category that was even more unexplainable and obscure than “zoophyte”.
Diderot, being a materialist and not strongly religiously affiliated, would have carefully analyzed the reasons for the polyp’s seemingly immortal characteristics until he had found the reasonable explanations that made this natural creature seem otherworldly. Even though the phenomenal features of the polyp were not fully understood in that era, there were several other similar examples in nature of the re-generation of limbs, such as in lizards and salamanders. Consequently, explaining that the polyp was no less natural than a salamander would not have been a feat, especially for someone as long-winded as Diderot.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe non materialist or more religiously oriented argument for what is "unnatural" really comes from what is immoral. How natural something is really how "acceptable" it is and in the end the natural and unnatural are spoken of mostly in the context of morality by Diderot's more pious contemporaries. Things outside the "natural" order could be seen as outside god. The materialist argument is utterly divorced from anything like morality or judgement. Everything that is, is natural just by virtue of being, and allows Diderot to accept and speak freely about such scandalous thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of your comments that the concept of "unnatural" is perceived differently by various belief systems. However, I can't help but consider the role of the Enlightenment ideals in this argument, and the hypocrisy that these Enlightenment thinkers are presenting. As we discussed in class, we know that the Enlightenment was a period during which there was a shift from divine knowledge to knowledge acquired through observation and experience. Still, as demonstrated in Lovejoy's work, there are many thinkers who believe that there is room for cosmic beings and the divine within the Scale of Nature.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bordeu asserts that "nothing that exists can be against nature or outside of nature," I have to wonder about the term "exist" and what it means to Enlightenment thinkers, who apparently are in favor of observation and experimentation of nature. Certain things can exist in the imagination, though, that do not exist in nature. I have never seen an angel, but does that mean that they do not exist? Does that mean that angels, and all other beings out of the realm of observation, are unnatural? Furthermore, is the imagination unnatural? If Enlightenment thinkers wanted to stick to their ideals, then it seems as though there is not even room for different religions in their argument of the "unnatural."
As a material determinist, Diderot would have found anything that any human wanted to do natural. However, if one is considering the great chain of being as serious metaphysical view it carries lofty aesthetic, and particularly ethical, positions of what it means to fit into a particular place on the chain. Acting in a manner that is less distinguished would relegate man to lower link in the chain and would be unnatural. Theses to belief systems, Diderot’s material determinism and the great chain of being do therefore, in my opinion cause different views of what it means to be natural.
ReplyDelete